February 15, 2019

The Perpetual Peril of Open Platforms

Over at Techdirt, Mike Masnick did a great post a few weeks back on a theme I’ve written about before: peoples’ tendency to underestimate the robustness of open platforms.

Once people have a taste for what that openness allows, stuffing it back into a box is very difficult. Yes, it’s important to remain vigilant, and yes, people will always attempt to shut off that openness, citing all sorts of “dangers” and “bad things” that the openness allows. But, the overall benefits of the openness are recognized by many, many people — and the great thing about openness is that you really only need a small number of people who recognize its benefits to allow it to flourish.

Closed systems tend to look more elegant at first — and often they are much more elegant at first. But open systems adapt, change and grow at a much faster rate, and almost always overtake closed systems, over time. And, once they overtake the closed systems, almost nothing will allow them to go back. Even if it were possible to turn an open system like the web into a closed system, openness would almost surely sneak out again, via a new method by folks who recognized how dumb it was to close off that open system.

Predictions about the impending demise of open systems have been a staple of tech policy debates for at least a decade. Larry Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace is rightly remembered as a landmark work of tech policy scholarship for its insights about the interplay between “East Coast code” (law) and “West Coast code” (software). But people often forget that it also made some fairly specific predictions. Lessig thought that the needs of e-commerce would push the Internet toward a more centralized architecture: a McInternet that squeezed out free speech and online anonymity.

So far, at least, Lessig’s predictions have been wide of the mark. The Internet is still an open, decentralized system that allows robust anonymity and free speech. But the pessimistic predictions haven’t stopped. Most recently, Jonathan Zittrain wrote a book predicting the impending demise of the Internet’s “generativity,” this time driven by security concerns rather than commercialization.

It’s possible that these thinkers will be proven right in the coming years. But I think it’s more likely that these brilliant legal thinkers have been mislead by a kind of optical illusion created by the dynamics of the marketplace. The long-term trend has been a steady triumph for open standards: relatively open technologies like TCP/IP, HTTP, XML, PDF, Java, MP3, SMTP, BitTorrent, USB, and x86, and many others have become dominant in their respective domains. But at any given point in time, a disproportionate share of public discussion is focused on those sectors of the technology industry where open and closed platforms are competing head-to-head. After all, nobody wants to read news stories about, say, the fact that TCP/IP’s market share continues to be close to 100 percent and has no serious competition. And at least superficially, the competition between open and closed systems looks really lopsided: the proprietary options tend to be supported by large, deep-pocketed companies with large development teams, multi-million dollar advertising budgets, distribution deals with leading retailers, and so forth. It’s not surprising that people so frequently conclude that open standards are on the verge of getting crushed.

For example, Zittrain makes the iPhone a poster child for the flashy but non-generative devices he fears will come to dominate the market. And it’s easy to see the iPhone’s advantages. Apple’s widely-respected industrial design department created a beautiful product. Its software engineers created a truly revolutionary user interface. Apple and AT&T both have networks of retail stores with which to promote the iPhone, and Apple is spending millions of dollars airing television ads. On first glance, it looks like open technologies are on the ropes in the mobile marketplace.

But open technologies have a kind of secret weapon: the flexibility and power that comes from decentralization. The success of the iPhone is entirely dependent on Apple making good technical and business decisions, and building on top of proprietary platforms requires navigating complex licensing issues. In contrast, absolutely anyone can use and build on top of an open platform without asking anyone else for permission, and without worrying about legal problems down the line. That means that at any one time, you have a lot of different people trying a lot of different things on that open platform. In the long run, the creativity of millions of people will usually exceed that of a few hundred engineers at a single firm. As Mike says, opens systems adapt, change and grow at a much faster rate than closed ones.

Yet much of the progress of open systems tends to happen below the radar. The grassroots users of open platforms are far less likely to put out press releases or buy time for television ads. So often it’s only after an open technology has become firmly entrenched in its market—MySQL in the low-end database market, for example—that the mainstream press starts to take notice of it.

As a result, despite the clear trend toward open platforms in the past, it looks to many people like that pattern is going to stop and perhaps even be reversed. I think this illusion is particularly pronounced for folks who are getting their information second- or third-hand. If you’re judging the state of the technology industry from mainstream media stories, television ads, shelf space at Best Buy, etc, you’re likely not getting the whole story. It’s helpful to remember that open platforms have always looked like underdogs. They’re no more likely to be crushed today than they were in 1999, 1989, or 1979.

Comments

  1. One minor correction: MP3 is not an open standard. It is a patented algorithm, whose patent situation is actually rather murky. One of the (claimed) patent holders, Thomson Consumer Electronics, has *decided* not to enforce the patents against lame and other Free and Open Source implementations, but this is merely a business decision, not a matter of principle. In fact, manufacturers of mp3 players have to pay a royalty to the patent holders.

    See the discussion here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues

    Because of these patents, Linux installations generally do not come with MP3 support installed; the end user has to add it. For this reason, many of us use ogg vorbis for our audio files. Ogg vorbis is a genuinely open standard, but has not caught on to the extent that MP3 has.

    • Good point. Although I suspect that if Ogg ever caught on you’d have people coming out of the woodwork to claim they had patents that covered that too. You’d be hard-pressed to find any software that isn’t at least arguably violating a patent or three.

      • The issue will eventually go away when the patents on all these things expire, which we are well on the way to with MP3, and presumably ogg as well.

        I recently was a debater in a series of debates that take place in a bar here in NYC. I took the position that Intellectual Property is Theft (meaning simply, that it’s a bad idea as currently constituted). The appalling state of our patents is one of the main things I was decrying.

  2. I really don’t buy into Zittrain’s doom and gloom for open platforms predictions either. His points seem rather weak to me: http://chainlynx.blogspot.com/2008/09/critique-of-zittrans-future-of-internet.html

  3. Anonymous says:

    The post before this one, Satyam and the Inadvertent Web, is truncated. The bottom of the page, with the comments and comment submission form, is missing. Reloading it produces the same results consistently.

  4. gohandbag says:

    I recently was a debater in a series of debates that take place in a bar here in NYC. I took the position that Intellectual Property is Theft (meaning simply, that it’s a bad idea as currently constituted). The appalling state of our patents is one of the main things I was decrying.I agree with u. so Thanks Louis Vuitton